Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
custom promise (part 2) vs jquery deferred object
(version: 0)
Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance
Comparing performance of:
my promise vs Jquery promise
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script> <script src="https://ayrtonms.github.io/mypromise/mypromise.js"></script>
Tests:
my promise
myajax("POST", "http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api", "banana=yellow") .done((res) => { console.log('Success!'); }) .fail((res) => { console.log('Failure!'); }) .always((res) => { console.log('Always!'); });
Jquery promise
$.ajax({ type: 'POST', url: "http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api", data: "banana=yellow" }) .done((res) => { console.log('Success!'); }) .fail((res) => { console.log('Failure!'); }) .always((res) => { console.log('Always!'); });;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
my promise
Jquery promise
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using vanilla JavaScript promises (`custom promise`) versus jQuery Deferred Objects (`Jquery deferred object`). The goal is to measure their performance in terms of execution speed. **Options compared** * Vanilla JavaScript promises * jQuery Deferred Objects **Pros and Cons** * **Vanilla JavaScript Promises** + Pros: - Lightweight and easy to understand. - Can be used for both synchronous and asynchronous operations. + Cons: - May require more code for complex operations (e.g., chaining multiple `.then()` methods). * **jQuery Deferred Objects** + Pros: - Built-in support for promise-like behavior, making it easier to handle asynchronous operations. - Can simplify code for common operations (e.g., handling errors with `.fail()` and logging success with `.done()`). + Cons: - Additional library dependency required (jQuery). - May add overhead due to the larger library size. **Library usage** In the benchmark, jQuery is used in one of the test cases (`Jquery promise`). The `$.ajax()` method returns a Deferred object, which can be used to chain methods like `.done()`, `.fail()`, and `.always()`. This allows for easy handling of asynchronous operations and error handling. **Special JS features** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark. It's focused on comparing two approaches using existing JavaScript concepts. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options: * **Promises**: Vanilla JavaScript promises can be replaced with Promises from the `es6-promise` library. * **RxJS**: The Reactive Extensions (RxJS) library provides a more functional programming-oriented approach to handling asynchronous data streams. * **Bluebird**: A promise library that offers features like error handling and debugging tools. Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional setup or learning, but they can provide different trade-offs and benefits depending on your specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
jquery vs vanilla
forEach vs forOwn
JQuery each vs for ... of for array
$.each vs for...in for object
Vanilla JS vs jQuery Selectors
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?